close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

House passes gun rights bill

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Rambo, Dec 6, 2017.

  1. Rambo

    Rambo G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    15,782
    6,058
    America
    minkowski1552, rando, blaster and 3 others like this.
  2. blue fox

    blue fox G&G Evangelist

    Nice. Now I guess I will have to get a CCW permit. Obviously Congresswoman Esty doesn't have a clue about how criminals are today.
     
    PAPA G likes this.

  3. gandog56

    gandog56 G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    Why do I have a bad feeling this may NEVER pass in the Senate, though. Too many RINO's and not enough sensible Dummycraps.
     
    jwrauch, Rocky7 and PAPA G like this.
  4. BaserRonin

    BaserRonin G&G Evangelist

    2,696
    500
    CO
    I suspect this will languish in the senate, just like the SHARE act.
     
    PAPA G likes this.
  5. SUBMOA

    SUBMOA G&G Evangelist

    Now, now, now , would be the time to call both your senators, daily would be good !
     
  6. neophyte

    neophyte Wonderment :) Forum Contributor

    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
    Rocky7 likes this.
  7. neophyte

    neophyte Wonderment :) Forum Contributor

    information: Required reading. (I highlighted; the opening)

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text
    926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

    “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

    “(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

    “(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

    “(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

    “(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

    “(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

    “(c) (1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section.
     
    chesterwin, TXplt and PAPA G like this.
  8. longshooter234

    longshooter234 G&G Evangelist

    694
    425
    Alabama
    Did they tag the "nix" update bill on this? I heard they were gonna and then when it got to the Senate, they could split em up and vote on them separately and that they were hoping to shoot down nat recip and just pass the update.
     
    PAPA G likes this.
  9. So if it gets past the Senate, does that mean my permit here in Missouri is GOOD anywhere ?......... Because we DON'T need a permit !...............
     
    jwrauch, Rocky7, PAPA G and 1 other person like this.
  10. gandog56

    gandog56 G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    I'm pretty sure my two REPUBLICAN Senators will.
     
    jwrauch, Wicked109, SUBMOA and 3 others like this.
  11. gandog56

    gandog56 G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    Somehow I doubt that. But while I would think the thing is great, it still kind of disses people from states where they have to take like a sometimes very expensive course and test to get their carry license, from people like me who can walk into the local Sheriff's office, plunk down 20 bucks, and get a license.You got to remember, when I moved down from Illinois and lived all my youth in Wisconsin, the last two holdout states that had NO concealed carry at the time, I was a happy camper with how easy it was to get one down here. My Alabama license was good in every state on the drive up to my brother's house near Milwaukee, until I hit the Illinois border. I would kind of like to keep carrying to his house.
     
    PAPA G likes this.
  12. Jim Rau

    Jim Rau G&G Evangelist

    This is a wolf in sheep's clothing. :( If passed it will make the illegal requirements to have permits more or less a permanent 'requirement' nation wide! If they want to do the right thing they would pass a national constitutional carry bill. DON'T BE FOOLED this is just another back door way to control US!!!
     
  13. Coach

    Coach G&G Evangelist

    1,255
    2,849
    NYS
    Unfortunately, this would do absolutely nothing for the cause as my two senators are Christian Gillibrand and Chucky "Photo op" Schumer, two of the more libtarded senators out there.

    See above.
     
    Cyrano, Bigfoot, PAPA G and 1 other person like this.
  14. SUBMOA

    SUBMOA G&G Evangelist

    Yeah Coach , I know that for some of us it is a act that is a totally wasted effort.
     
    Coach and PAPA G like this.
  15. gandog56

    gandog56 G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    I'm wondering if it will create a "back door" for residents of some states with more restrictive licensing. Where they could get a license from say Utah, which will sell them to out of state people, and might be a heck of a lot cheaper, less time consuming, and lets them avoid classes and stuff they may have to take to get one in their own state.
     
    cjleete, Wicked109 and PAPA G like this.
  16. Jim Rau

    Jim Rau G&G Evangelist

    It will have some positive, short term affects, but in the long run it is a bad deal. Unless there is a prevision in the bill which exempts those from Constitutional Carry states from the required permit and allows their DL to show that they are residents there and do not need a permit it will do as I said and make the 'permit' a 'requirement' nation wide FOREVER:( to go armed!
     
    PAPA G likes this.
  17. Palladin8

    Palladin8 G&G Evangelist

    Would be nice if passed so I could travel through CA and carry while there and not have to worry about being unarmed. As it stands if i'm transporting a firearm in CA it has to be in a gun case and ammo has to be separate in an ammo box. Can't be in a magazine at all or it's considered a loaded firearm.
    Wonder what this will do for magazine capacity requirements if traveling to states where they are restricted to 10 rounds or less?
     
    PAPA G likes this.
  18. cjleete

    cjleete G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    I didn't see any language pertaining to magazine capacity. So if by some unlikely chance this actually happens, we will still have to abide by whatever state laws apply.
     
    chesterwin and Palladin8 like this.
  19. Cyrano

    Cyrano Resident Curmudgeon Forum Contributor

    26,568
    12,537
    New York
    Nevertheless, Coach, call the Sock Puppet and Upchuck and let them know you want them to vote in favor of the bill.

    Where it could get interesting is this scenario.

    The Senate passes the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. President Trump signs it into law. The libtards go bananas, but it IS the law and fork the libtards sideways up the ash with barbed wire dipped in tabasco sauce.

    Then, someone from one of the sane states with a valid concealed carry permit brings his concealed carry pistol into New York City, the most oppressive city in the country when it comes to gun rights. The NYPD arrests him.

    His lawyer challenges the arrest on the grounds that under the NCCRA, the NYPD does not have the right to bust him. The NYC prosecutor argues that under the Sullivan Law, the NYPD does have the right to arrest him, because his CCW was not issued by one of the Five Boroughs (aka Bronx County, Kings County, Queens County, New York County, and Richmond County -- in New York State pistol permits are issued at the county level by the county judges based on the recommendation of the county sheriff's office, even in the Rotten Apple).

    This is where it gets interesting. The Sullivan Law was passed in the Rotten Apple more than a century ago, to give the NYPD a weapon to use against the mobs, whose members carried concealed legally by buying small pieces of property Upstate, thereby becoming "landowners" in rural counties, and going to the sheriffs up there to get their pistol permits, which because they were landowners were routinely granted. This drove New York's Finest mad, but was perfectly legal at that time. Hence, the Sullivan Law.

    However, since then there have been numerous adjudicated cases, including firearms law cases, that have established municipal laws do not trump state or federal laws. Nutter, the Democratic mayor of Philadelphia attempted to pass a Philly version of the Sullivan Law, and got slapped down by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Democratic mayor of Pittsburgh tried it as well, and also got slapped down hard, the PA Supremes telling the the city they HAD to obey the state gun laws; we do not care what you ashholes think, state law trumps municipal or county law. Period.

    So New York City would be in the unenviable position of trying to defend a discriminatory municipal anti-gun law that already-settled case law has established is invalid because it flies in the face of state gun law. If the case got up to the Supreme Court, I suspect the Justices would have no choice but to tell The Cesspool That Never Sleeps, "You are in the wrong. Municipal laws do not trump state laws, and state laws do not trump federal laws. You MUST recognize ALL concealed carry permits, not only the ones issued by New York City. Article IV, Section 1 is very much on point: 'Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.' Period. Dismiss the charges against the plaintiff and tell the NYPD that the Sullivan Law is dead."

    And no doubt Commissar DiBlasio, the Lesser Satan Cuomo, Upchuck Schumer, and Sock Puppet Gillibrand would froth at the mouth, throw temper tantrums on live TV, and bring out "experts" from the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Bunch to predict Dodge-City-on-Saturday-Night levels of gun violence seven days a week caused by the out-of-towners carrying concealed and blowing away any Gothamite whose looks they did not like. Which of course has never happened anyplace where the rules on concealed carry have changed. But that is by the way.
     
    BaserRonin and PAPA G like this.
  20. FortyXDM

    FortyXDM G&G Evangelist Staff Member